Geeez ,, no talk of this , Big breaking story today ..

[detbuch]

The accuracy of the article is in question.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/12/3.../?subscriber=1

There are also some internal contradictions in the article as well as contradictions of previous NY Times articles. That the reporter interviewed all those folks with his pointed questions this long after the event and considering the threat any of them would be under if they expressed any incriminating "facts," and considering a Muslim tenet that lying to one's enemy is a tactic not a sin, it would have been extraordinary if there would have been much "revelation" in the answers to the questions. Nor does the article clear the administration of bungling the affair in terms of what has been pointed out ad nauseam as their lack of proper response, etc. It seems to be an attempt to clear the way for Hillary.

Nor does it explain why the administration kept changing its story and why it didn't stick to its original assertion that the attack was solely about a video. Nor of what importance it is, if true, which is in question, that it was solely local militias with no al Qaida influence. As Hillary might say--what's the difference?!! The embassy was ill-prepared against such an attack no matter by who, and, as the NY Times article points out, there were warnings.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The accuracy of the article is in question.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/12/3.../?subscriber=1

GOPUSA? Really???

Nor does it explain why the administration kept changing its story and why it didn't stick to its original assertion that the attack was solely about a video.

The initial story was that the video sparked the event and extremists quickly moved in. That fit with the evidence at the time. Nothing has really contradicted this and the NYT story seems to give it additional credibility.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

GOPUSA? Really???

The New York Times? Really???

How about dropping the snobbery bit and explain what is wrong with the article?

The initial story was that the video sparked the event and extremists quickly moved in.

Interesting. So, wasn't the supposed initial reaction to the video by "extremists." Or did some regular non-extreme folks somehow just happen to get wind of the video and this somehow sparked an event composed by regular non-extreme folks who wanted to stage a peaceful nicey-nice demonstration which was then "quickly" moved in on by unaware, unprepared, and fully armed "actual" extremists? Really???

That fit with the evidence at the time. Nothing has really contradicted this and the NYT story seems to give it additional credibility.

-spence

Amazing how something can be made to "fit with the evidence." Isn't that usually the case when you attempt to create a story of deniable plausibility? Yes, things have really contradicted the "fit with the evidence." But it is apparently useless to hash it out once again since any contradictory "evidence" seems to fall on deaf or unreceptive ears.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The New York Times? Really???

How about dropping the snobbery bit and explain what is wrong with the article?

Snobbery? I think the NYT still has some pretty credible journalistic standards. Your GOP site is just regurgitating remarks from House members, the basis of which have gone nowhere in their "investigation."

Interesting. So, wasn't the supposed initial reaction to the video by "extremists." Or did some regular non-extreme folks somehow just happen to get wind of the video and this somehow sparked an event composed by regular non-extreme folks who wanted to stage a peaceful nicey-nice demonstration which was then "quickly" moved in on by unaware, unprepared, and fully armed "actual" extremists? Really???

I think the NYT piece captures the most likely scenario pretty well.

Amazing how something can be made to "fit with the evidence." Isn't that usually the case when you attempt to create a story of deniable plausibility? Yes, things have really contradicted the "fit with the evidence." But it is apparently useless to hash it out once again since any contradictory "evidence" seems to fall on deaf or unreceptive ears.

State took a lot of grief over this event from the non-partisan investigations already complete.

So far, what we've seen is a strained attempt to fit the facts with a conspiracy theory that's gone no where.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Snobbery? I think the NYT still has some pretty credible journalistic standards. Your GOP site is just regurgitating remarks from House members, the basis of which have gone nowhere in their "investigation."

Yes, it is snobbery to dismiss an article because you have a low opinion of the source. You don't address anything in the article--just poo-poo it because it's GOPUSA which has had many very interesting, accurate, and informative articles. Of course, if you don't read it, it ain't no good.

And how do you know where the House investigation has gone? It hasn't been finished and classified intel has not been released. One of those on the committee, Adam Schiff DEMOCRAT disputes the accuracy of the article saying there was an Al Qaeda connection with the militia groups involved in the attack. And he said "The intelligence indicates that Al Qaeda was involved."

I think the NYT piece captures the most likely scenario pretty well.

It is too selective and leaves out too much. It doesn't have access to the House intel info. It doesn't recognize the affiliation between Al Qaeda and Ansar al Sharia

On the other hand the article disputes the Administration's initial claim that the attack was spontaneous--"The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs." No, it wasn't planned to the T like a master military operation, but it was deliberately unleashed at a certain time and place to instigate an inflamed rabble, and who were probably "informed" about the video by "extremists" who were looking for another "spontaneous spark" to riot like those they had already inspired in Egypt and other parts of Libya. And the "spontaneous" rioters, as the Times article reveals, were directed by various militia lieutenants both in allowing the rioters inside the havoc and keeping out anyone who might stop them.

Abu Khattala, the leader of one of the militias, claims not to be affiliated with Al Qaeda but admires it and what it does. He is still, to this day, freely roaming the streets of Benghazi in spite of his being a major instigator. The article quotes four who were interviewed under anonymity because they were afraid of repercussions. How much actual truth can you get from those who fear for their lives?

Ansar Al Sharia is an affiliate of Al Qaeda and was implicated even by the article in the attack. And it had been forming in Libya for some time before the attack.

According to the Washington Times (Omigosh, Really???) "The FBI, which was tasked by the Obama Administration concluded the attack was carried out by a combination of militants with varying degrees of connection to three Islamist groups: Ansar Al Sharia The Muhammad Jamal network, and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb."

The NY Times article is helpful in showing how a lack of security leads to tragedy and how gullible trust in Islamic factions revealed the dangerous lack of understanding of the volatile situation the administration was dealing with. The total disregard for connection between various "militant" groups and the major umbrella of ideology inspired by larger Islamic organizations such as Al Qaeda had to be denied in order to carry out the mission in such an unprepared, naively idealistic, rather foolish way. The Benghazi incident was a total bungle, not just by Dept. of State headed by Hillary, but by the Administration as a whole

The refusal to understand the implicit cohesion among "militant" or "extreme" Islamic groups toward the global jihad creates trusts which lead to tragedy. Not understanding the basic religious connection between differing Islamist groups in their mission to bring down the West is an incompetent view which only aids their mission. And it is known that Al Qaeda's, jihadist goals have over the past couple of years been implemented by affiliated groups inspired by Al Qaeda and many of whose leaders came directly from Al Qaeda. It was Bin Laden's plan that his mission was to be carried out by Muslims worldwide, regardless of local affiliations, which would eventually erupt in global jihad.

State took a lot of grief over this event from the non-partisan investigations already complete.

Blaming State and absolving its boss is political whitewash. Apparently the buck in this administration always stops at lower levels. Leading from behind, no doubt.

So far, what we've seen is a strained attempt to fit the facts with a conspiracy theory that's gone no where.

-spence

The NY Times article which you claim captures the most likely scenario does not preclude a conspiracy. It tries to minimize it and distance it from major Islamist "extremists." And it doesn't mention the name Hillary Clinton.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The NY Times article which you claim captures the most likely scenario does not preclude a conspiracy. It tries to minimize it and distance it from major Islamist "extremists." And it doesn't mention the name Hillary Clinton.

Ahhh yes, the old "it hasn't been totally dis-proven either" argument. Let's just keep looking until we find the smoking gun, or the 2016 election...which ever comes sooner.

I don't think the NYT report is dismissive of alQaeda links at all, rather, they get down to what it really means. Sharing some common viewpoints isn't an "affiliation". Having some level of acquaintance isn't "coordination". The important question is if core alQaeda influenced/funded/collaborated etc... in the attack. I've still not seen anything that indicated this is the case.

alQaeda seems to have become almost a generic word for terrorism when it suits the agenda.

Good perspective here...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...-al-qaeda.html

The article doesn't contradict the Administration's initial claims of the video, if anything it bolsters them. There appears to be substantial evidence indicating the video played a role, likely the timing for the attack which had only been loosely planned to that point. The fact that heavily armed extremists quickly moved in was a central line to the Administration narrative from the beginning...

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Ahhh yes, the old "it hasn't been totally dis-proven either" argument. Let's just keep looking until we find the smoking gun, or the 2016 election...which ever comes sooner.

The NYT article doesn't preclude a larger conspiracy but tries to minimize the blame, or the conspiracy it admits existed, on merely local militias.

You're using the old "it hasn't been proven" argument, even though a mass of evidence suggests otherwise.

And about the 2016 election--let's just stop looking until then. As you like to say, it cuts both ways.

I don't think the NYT report is dismissive of alQaeda links at all, rather, they get down to what it really means. Sharing some common viewpoints isn't an "affiliation". Having some level of acquaintance isn't "coordination". The important question is if core alQaeda influenced/funded/collaborated etc... in the attack. I've still not seen anything that indicated this is the case.

The article that inspired this thread claimed the NYT article found no evidence of an al Qaeda involvement. To which you replied that it helped to confirm the obvious. Now you have evolved to saying that you don't think it was dismissive of al Qaeda links at all. That's progress.

And, yes, by various definitions the sharing of common viewpoints among "extremists" or "jihadists" does involve an "affiliation."

Wiki definition of al Qaeda includes:

"Al Qaeda's operations have devolved from actions that were controlled from top down to actions by franchise associated groups, to actions of lone wolfs.

"Activities ascribed to it may involve members of the movement . . . or the much more numerous al Qaeda linked individuals . . . it has emerged as a decentralized leadership of regional groups using the al Qaeda "brand."

". . . experts argue that al Qaeda has fragmented over the years into a variety of regional movements that have little connection with one another."

Osama Bin Laden himself said al Qaeda is not what the west portrays it to be. He claims that all Muslims are "the children of an Islamic Nation" and that his group of leaders/teachers are part of that Nation and inseparable from all the public "demonstrations" occurring throughout the world.

He issued various Fatwahs calling for jihad worldwide against those who were enemies of Islam, such as Americans and their allies--to be carried out by all Muslims, not just "all Qaeda." In essence, those calls were a unifying element of most terrorist, jihadist groups.

Wiki says the 2012 Benghazi attack ". . . is suspected of having been carried out by various jihadist networks, such as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Ansar al Sharia and several other AFFILIATED groups." And that large groups such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad cooperate with al Qaeda.

Even non-Muslims can be inspired by Bin Laden's rhetoric, as was the perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks who was inspired by al Qaeda calling it "the most successful revolutionary movement in the world."

"Core al Qaeda" as you refer to it, is comprised of a relatively few members. But they infiltrate and inspire as well as create various apparently disconnected groups to act with the "al Qaeda brand."

alQaeda seems to have become almost a generic word for terrorism when it suits the agenda.

It has become so because of its success in influencing disparate "terrorist" groups to preach the same jihadist rhetoric it espouses. And because they are all part of the same "Nation" that Bin Laden claims. And to act up in similar types of rallies or "protests" with all too similar results.

As well, "core al Qaeda" has specifically stated that it does not always wish to attach its name to various groups that it is affiliated with and is perfectly willing to let them take full credit, it they wish, for whatever they do. It has increasingly become more prone to do this for security reasons.

Good perspective here...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...-al-qaeda.html

The article doesn't contradict the Administration's initial claims of the video, if anything it bolsters them. There appears to be substantial evidence indicating the video played a role, likely the timing for the attack which had only been loosely planned to that point. The fact that heavily armed extremists quickly moved in was a central line to the Administration narrative from the beginning...

-spence

The NYT article as well as this one don't actually bolster the Administration's claims, they try to deflect from the incompetence of the Administrations handling of the affair. Like the magician who actively uses one hand to create "magic" and all the while distracts the viewer from focusing on the other hand which is manipulating the "slight of hand." Both articles focus, on the one hand, on the rather bogus issue of al Qaeda participation rather than, on the other hand, the actual security issues and disregard for calls to help. As Hillary would say "what does it matter" if it was al Qaeda or unconnected local militias? The results are the same. Handling the situation would not have to differ in either case.

But, though focusing on al Qaeda or no al Qaeda distracts from the handling, focusing on your author's assertion that "turning al Qaeda into a radically loose term is different from observing, correctly, that al Qaeda today involves decentralized local affiliates" does something other than bolster the Administrations "narrative." It shows its incompetence in another, more dangerous way. The author of your article makes the statement as if it were a new, profound, revelation.

The fact is, what he describes has been known for quite a while. Witness Wiki's definitions. There have been many articles, interviews, radio talk shows with Middle East "experts" and Jihadist "experts" who have specifically pointed out that al Qaeda is comprised not only of a small "core," but is disseminated through many diverse affiliated groups, many of which, as they did in Benghazi, fly the black flag. It has been known that "core" al Qaeda has long since disguised itself through infiltrated or created groups with other names. And though your author's assertion that the Administration not being aware of the diversity should allow "in a rational political environment, the President's opponents" to "see this as damning", the contrary fact that they don't see the connection, the similarities of the diverse elements, is even more incompetent.

Both your article and the NYT article actually condemn the Administration in their attempt to exonerate it.

For further explanation of al Qaeda involvement see
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/rya...ltrated-libya/

See also:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...te_772398.html

And see also a more lengthy:
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/aq-libya-loc.pdf